June International Test: Australia vs. England [1st Test] (11/06/2016)

[Peat]

How much difference is there between Farrell's system and Gustard's system? I'd have thought not much.

I've see us try to blitz against SH teams and get utterly picked apart once too often. If you don't get up there in time, they'll just go round you, and that's it. England were far too easy to get round under Farrell and I'm really not sure what Gustard can do to change it. Its not like our line speed was slow under Farrell at all. No matter how quick your line speed, if they're deep enough, your blitz won't work.

As you say a lot of defending is deciding whether to blitz or drift - although I think we did also find option 3, do nothing at all. But once a team with good hands has quick ball, I think its too easy to beat the blitz if you know what you're doing.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Possibly, but not necessarily. Gustard may simply be a better coach. He may have in effect more time to work with the players on defence as he is not the de facto assistant coach as Farrell was. Also, Gustard's Sarries defence is characterised by that very exaggerated umbrella shape - in effect using the 13 as an almost permanent shooter. That's something that could be added to England's defence.

What do you mean by doing nothing as an option - could you elaborate?

 

[Zed]

How much difference is there between Farrell's system and Gustard's system? I'd have thought not much.

I've see us try to blitz against SH teams and get utterly picked apart once too often. If you don't get up there in time, they'll just go round you, and that's it. England were far too easy to get round under Farrell and I'm really not sure what Gustard can do to change it. Its not like our line speed was slow under Farrell at all. No matter how quick your line speed, if they're deep enough, your blitz won't work.

As you say a lot of defending is deciding whether to blitz or drift - although I think we did also find option 3, do nothing at all. But once a team with good hands has quick ball, I think its too easy to beat the blitz if you know what you're doing.

I thought England's blitz defence worked pretty well in the 2nd half, about 4 or 5 times they tackled us well behind the gain line and we lost a good 20m or turned it over. The thing with a good blitz defence is timing, the 13, (for example) can't go too early otherwise 10 will see what's happening and cut out the player who he originally was going to pass to, too late and there's an overlap. It's quite hard to get it right, but very effective if you do get it right.

 

[austingtir]

As a final comment, If you have to devise tactics to nullify a player, it's actually a testament to how good a player he actually is, so to imply that Pocock is overrated is ridiculous. Most teams in the world would welcome him with open arms if they could have him.

Thats rubbish because if you use the tactics the AB's have used to Nullify Pocock it works. Pocock cant do a damn thing about it, its written all over his face every time he was beaten in both WC finals... How can he have no answer to the same loosies we played against him 4 years later? He's had 4 years to stew on 2011 and still got totally owned.

Then you play him at 8 when he does not give you a credible line out option or the genuine height and bulk to come off the back of the scrum and make the advantage line every time. This tactic of playing him at 8 will only work if they have Wayne Barnes as reff (who tends to allow a free for all at ruck time for teams with genuine pilferers) or some team who have never seen how the AB's have dealt to this guy in consecutive WCUPS.

He's a good 7 but he's no top int level number 8.

 

[Raggs]

I don't think Haskell is all that slow. He's not Clifford but he's not slow. Doesn't have his sevens pace any more but I'd back him against the rest of our pack except for perhaps mullan.

 

[johnmac99]

Aussies make 4 changes for 2nd Test.

McMahon in for Pocock, Slipper and Kepu for Sio and Holmes, Carter in for Simmons

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-unio...-four-changes-for-melbourne-test-with-england

Cheika admitting he made a mistake and under-estimated England's scrum. Sio was in Cole's pocket and Mako handled Holmes well.

Who's the ref?

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Thats rubbish because if you use the tactics the AB's have used to Nullify Pocock it works. Pocock cant do a damn thing about it, its written all over his face every time he was beaten in both WC finals... How can he have no answer to the same loosies we played against him 4 years later? He's had 4 years to stew on 2011 and still got totally owned.

Then you play him at 8 when he does not give you a credible line out option or the genuine height and bulk to come off the back of the scrum and make the advantage line every time. This tactic of playing him at 8 will only work if they have Wayne Barnes as reff (who tends to allow a free for all at ruck time for teams with genuine pilferers) or some team who have never seen how the AB's have dealt to this guy in consecutive WCUPS.

He's a good 7 but he's no top int level number 8.

I don't think anybody's ever claimed he's a top international level 8. He's a top international level 7, one of the best (if not the best) in the world, that's being played at 8 to get him into the team with Hooper.

Did you actually read Shaggy's comment? He's saying that the very fact Pocock HAS to be nullified is proof of how good he is. It doesn't matter whether or not you CAN- as the best team in the world it would be embarassing if New Zealand couldn't counter him to some extent. Nobody has ever had to devise a strategy to nullify Chris Robshaw, or Sam Warbuton, or Thierry Dusautoir, or Richie McCaw (other than pointing at him and saying "Ref, come on" every time he infringed, which should have worked, but didn't ). It's not that they're not quality players, but none offer the same massive threat in any facet of the game as Pocock does at the breakdown.

Every time Pocock goes into a breakdown you need to dedicate two players to clear him out. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but always more than average. Hence fewer players in the defensive line, hence gaps, etc. Have you really "nullified" him, or are you strong you strong enough in other areas that even weakened by him they aren't shown up?

- - - Updated - - -

Bob Dwyer accusing Dan Cole of scrummaging illegally (ironic considering the way the frequency that the Australian front row pulled it down) one phrase jumps out:

"on other occasions he managed to roll his right shoulder and give nothing to push against, causing Scott Sio to roll in as well"

That's absolutely textbook scrummaging, completely within the letter of the law. Just another example of the media poo flinging from both sides.

Marler apparently in trouble for tweeting "Bob Dwyer's a ******", which is concise at least. How can he get in trouble when he's not even in the squad?

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

Slade (on the bench) for burrell
Ford/Farrell starting (until a better option is found).
Clifford for lawes
Nowell starting for yarde
Yarde replaced by goode on the bench

Thoughts?

Right, we have a problem here...

 

[Scotty]

Right, we have a problem here...

Is the problem goode by any chance? Daly instead?

 

[Every Time Ref]

I think the problem is too many Scottys...

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

I think the problem is too many Scottys...

The plural of Scotty is Scotti. Therefore: "Too many Scotti"

 

[Every Time Ref]

"Scotti surplusi"

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

"Scotti surplusi"

Wouldn't it be "nonnuli Scotti" for our scenario?

 

[Every Time Ref]

Wouldn't it be "nonnuli Scotti" for our scenario?

I think you just out-Latinned me. Damn.

I honestly don't know, I just assumed surplus was a Latin root and pluralised it - pluralised it wrongly, I'm pretty sure too!

Scotti Surpli?

Scotti Maximi?

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

I think you just out-Latinned me. Damn.

I honestly don't know, I just assumed surplus was a Latin root and pluralised it - pluralised it wrongly, I'm pretty sure too!

Scotti Surpli?

Scotti Maximi?

I'll admit to having checked a textbook then... No idea about surpli. Think the other would be greatest/largest Scottys though.

Do we get some kind of award for strangest thread derailment?

Back on track; what do people think of Ford-Farrell-Burrell as 10-12-13?

Nevah hoppnin', but Burrell looked great at 13 in the 2014 6Ns (better than he's ever looked at 12 imo) and is better suited to the 13 channel blitz than Joseph. Little bit more bulk to shore up an otherwise lightweight back line too.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I'll admit to having checked a textbook then... No idea about surpli. Think the other would be greatest/largest Scottys though.

Do we get some kind of award for strangest thread derailment?

Back on track; what do people think of Ford-Farrell-Burrell as 10-12-13?

Nevah hoppnin', but Burrell looked great at 13 in the 2014 6Ns (better than he's ever looked at 12 imo) and is better suited to the 13 channel blitz than Joseph. Little bit more bulk to shore up an otherwise lightweight back line too.

Like you said, would never happen but would be interesting. Although, I'm not sure putting a 17+ stone 13 outside 2 10s is tactically that sound. Ideally, with 2 10s you want a fast 13, which is why JJ and Daly for so well into the game plan. Maybe with someone like Devoto inside it would be better, to recreate that 36-Burrell partnership, except with a better 36.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Burrell is not quick enough and his defence doesn't exactly make up for his lack of speed.

He would be done regularly on the outside IMO.

He is a 6N's type player not a world class player.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I'll admit to having checked a textbook then... No idea about surpli. Think the other would be greatest/largest Scottys though.

Do we get some kind of award for strangest thread derailment?

Back on track; what do people think of Ford-Farrell-Burrell as 10-12-13?

Nevah hoppnin', but Burrell looked great at 13 in the 2014 6Ns (better than he's ever looked at 12 imo) and is better suited to the 13 channel blitz than Joseph. Little bit more bulk to shore up an otherwise lightweight back line too.

I'll stop you right there, you're talking to a JJ fetishist.

However, just to humour the infidel ... that just feels like a weird balance to me, plus I just don't think Burrell is international standard I'm afraid. His defence has always been suspect, and defence is harder in the 13 channel. Also for a "battering ram" type player, he isn't THAT much of a battering ram, it's not like he makes many breaks or sucks in massive amounts of defenders or really bends the defensive line.

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

Is the problem goode by any chance? Daly instead?

@Every Time Ref is right here.

I think the problem is too many Scottys...

 

[Colombia]

Huh? Find another example of a kiwi discrediting Pocock.

See it all the time. Funny thing is, behind the facade they know he's an amazing player just won't admit it because of national bias.

- - - Updated - - -

Well my to do list for England:

- Drift defence needs to improve, Aussies were creating overlaps for fun because our defence was always too tight. We are doing the Sarries wolfpack but are only doing it half heartedly. We are pressing enough to bring the defence forward but not enough to pressure anyone. That means when the ball gets to the wing, the entire defence is forward of where it needs to be. This happened in the 6N too. If we are going to press up in defence, we need to be engaging the Aussies before the ball gets to the wings.

- Midfield defence. Especially with Burrell they were getting through here so easily. Suprised to see Ford made 2nd most tackles, didn't notice the Aussies really running through players that much but bouncing off some very passive tackling.

- Youngs is too damn slow. Every single breakdown he slows the ball right down. The England U20 scrumhalf could have taught him something in fast delivery. Youngs always does a step, wind up and then pass. It makes it easy for the Aussies.

- 1 out passing to forwards. Stupid and easy to defend. Achieves nothing. Aussie forwards look to do something more with the ball. Our forwards, especially the front 3, do nothing more than trot into the highest concentration of players they can find. Extremely ineffective carrying and they should look for the odd pop up to a player on their shoulder (there never is one).

- Less aimless kicking to the back 3 but a kick chase to Folau will be good, he very rarely kicks and if we pressure him to try to run or pass from his 22, he could cause errors again.

- Stop ****ing about in the scrums. Seriously, it's so **** to watch.

Great post, wish Eddie Jones could read it.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. I don't think England played that great. If they don't get their defence sorted out next week they could be in trouble. They did seem to improve in the latter part of the game especially when it came to shutting down attacks out wide, but there were times that Folau got though when he shouldn't have done. I don't think we will have it that easy next week though, England will look to shut down our runners down the 13, 15 channel so we are going to have to have a plan B and perhaps look to play a tad more conservatively, kick for territory etc

By the same token, if they do get their defence sorted out then Australia are in trouble because England had it over them at the set-piece and breakdown.